10.31.19
Happy Halloween! Okay, I have a lot of things to comment on and I will try to answer questions I raise.
First of all, on the whole democracy/aristocracy extreme that they had no compromises: I would say an oligarchy is a compromise. Assuming itās an institute without corruption, then placing power in the hands of people who can discuss issues and rule on them rather than whoever has the most money is a compromise.
Now, hereās where we run into issues. Because I was thinking, really, thatās what we have in America. Sure, thereās AOC and Sanders on the less elite extreme, and Devos on the least democratic end, but for the most part, our government is the HoR and Senate, which is essentially an oligarchy.Ā
According to this:Ā https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_111th_United_States_CongressĀ (admittedly from 2010), only one senator and 27/435 Reps donāt have a college diploma. In the US, thatās already the beginnings of aristocracy.
(Iām not gonna touch the fact in our current senate 3/4 of senators are men.)
Really, who becomes in politics? With pacs and superpacs, itās mainly people who have money, and moreso they arenāt the nouveau riche.Ā
Which brings a rather unpleasant reality, which is... we have a tyrant. Trump. Who came to power the same way, best I can tell, other tyrants came to power. Appealing to the demos, and securing allies with other tyrants (Iām not touching that second half either. Iām being very good!)
Now, are we going to see a whiplash in 2020? Will people crave the re-empowerment of the known aristocracy/āswampā? Or will people want even more influence, now that the veil has been drawn back on the elitism that kept politics as a more abstract concept for the average person rather than something discussed daily?
Also, back to AOC (who couldnāt move to DC til she got her first paycheck or somesuch) 4th century athens did the great thing where they decreased individuals powers by making participating in government cost prohibitive.
Shifting gears slightly, I was thinking about the Athenian shift in structure to prevent persuasive, uneducated people from taking control. I think I have that issue a lot. Especially in Chemistry. Iām really good at convincing people of things are arguing my side, but unfortunately usually Iām not really trying to do that and want them to argue back. But then I convince people. And then we both get it wrong. Whoops. (I mean, sometimes Iām right. But this still happens frequently.)
Of course, the issue with going the other way is there have been indications women get held back because they equivocate too much, whereas men will state their opinion bluntly, and as a fact. I wonder if itās a difference in socialization because I do think some equivocation is polite (see how I saidĀ āI do thinkā to indicate I donāt view my opinion as uncontested fact?) but you also wind up with women who will NOT state an opinion, even if they have one, which makes it supremely exhausting to figure out if theyāre annoyed you start the dishwasher at night so they have to empty it in the morning when you didnāt mean to make more work for them, or they may just not mind but you donāt KNOW because they donāt tell you and then you canāt tell them for the love of GOD donāt empty the dishwasher at 6am when youāre up and Iām aiming for another two hours of sleep because my door is right by the kitchen, but it would be rude to tell them NOT to do housework when theyāre so considerate.
